Great reporting on the CD disability package, Jim. Given this man's history, one can only assume he'll grab it. At this point, you want to approach him with words that rung true in the 1950s: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

I am in management at another media company and I think posters here, in their complaints against Gannett management, often fail to see the big picture.

Newspapers are being phased out and Gannett, because of its size, will likely be in the forefront of this strategy. The future of information delivery is the internet and mobile and the future of content generation is freelance, reader feedback and outsourcing.

The old model of hiring professional, fulltime photographers and reporters is dead. The photographers are already being phased out at some companies, with art provided by freelancers, services and readers who seek no pay.

Each site in the future will employ a handful of editors to organize and edit reader/freelance/service and, yes,robotic content. Traditional newspaper-type information of this sort will be a small part of any site with other information products and services providing major revenue streams.

Old-fashioned investigative journalism and watchdog reporting will be left to non-profit web sites. A good example is what will be happening at the Carnegie-Knight News21 program at Arizona State, which is foundation supported.

While no media executive will admit it (bad for morale), this is the blueprint for the future. I will be very surprised if Gannett operates any print products except USAToday (a vanity product) in 10 years.

Great work on the Dubow post, Jim. Easy to see what's going on here: The board doesn't have to "fire" Dubow, and Dubow gets to pretend it was his disability that forced him out and collect a much bigger payday to boot. It's a win for everyone, except of course the shareholders, who will be fleeced by this empty suit one last time.

Anyone else think it's depressing that CNN's coverage of the Reno Air Race disaster is more coherent than what's on the Reno Gazette-Journal Web site? I understand that the paper has gone to a rolling blog presentation for breaking news because it doesn't have the staff to actually write entire stories, but it's a shame when national news organizations are covering stories better than you are.

Really 1:20? If you actually paid attention most of the detail Anderson Cooper had came right off that rolling update. The Reno team was all over this tragic story. Their photos and videos are incredible.

4:26 -- @1:20 here. It's not that the Reno paper didn't have the info. It's the way that information was presented throughout the evening on Friday. Since I live on the East Coast, I decided to go back and take a look at what's there now and it's pretty good. It seems like they finally compiled that information into one cohesive story.

Prior to that, everything on the front page of the Web site was being presented in blog format. I suppose that's fine for readers who have nothing better to do than sit glued to a Web site so they can get each new fact as it comes in. But for everyone else the story was the reverse of the inverted pyramid. You had to go to the bottom of the story (clicking through pages of information) to get the basics. And those basics sometimes changed. So, it was very difficult to ascertain what was going on.

Most of the national sites I saw presented a fairly traditional news story but went in and edited that news story to update the details, making it far easier. Since Reno is a Gannett paper, I can only guess that it doesn't have the reporting power to do something like that and that listing new information every few minutes was the best they could do.

I'm not blaming the reporters. I suspect its a Gannett issue. And, if what you say is true, it's really sad. Gannett has created a situation where it's papers are no longer good at presenting information but where they are good at gathering it so that other organizations can then synthesize it and present it.

When you think about it, that's just more of the problem the whole industry is facing. Papers have always had good information, but Internet sites got really good at stealing it and passing it around to people. After all these years, we still don't understand the Internet, so we're making it even easier to give our content away.

I don't have anything against the Reno newsroom and I have no doubt that the reporters working the story worked hard. But, as a reader, I found it easier to get information from other sources. Also, I had no idea who those reporters were until that most recent update because the rare bylines indicated that the information was coming from staff and wire reports. That's a problem isn't it? The fact that I went to the Reno site but found the information easier to digest elsewhere.

7:17 great speech. I am frin Reno and have been ti the air races baby times. As a reader, a consumer of information, and not some self important pontificating poster, they gave me What I wanted throughout the day. Great job folks. Jeep it coming!

Is the Reno paper a Gannett property? Why couldn't we see their superior coverage of this disaster on the Gannett Today's Front Page display? And why didn't we see the Grass Valley paper's coverage on Today's Front Page? They seem to have the go-to art. --LA person

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."